Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a Blue Badge. This is because the Council has offered to do a further assessment and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his application for a Blue Badge. He says the Council has ignored that he is at risk of falls and harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the application, medical evidence and decision letters. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. People qualify for a badge if they are unable to walk, experience considerable difficulty when walking or are at serious risk of harm when walking.
5. The guidance says that people who can walk 80 metres and do not demonstrate very considerable difficulty in walking are not eligible for a badge. Councils should take into account factors such as pain, speed, balance, gait and shortness of breath when assessing if someone can walk 80 metres.
6. Councils usually do a face-to-face mobility assessment to assess applications. During the pandemic the Council did telephone assessments. The Council plans to resume in-person assessments in April.
7. Mr X applied for a badge. He said he can walk fairly long distances, uses a stick and has balance problems. At other times Mr X reported being able to walk for an hour, cycling for 30 minutes, and doing self-directed rehab following a serious illness. He reported falls and said that if he fell in the road he would be at risk. Mr X said that if he was observed it would be obvious he cannot walk without considerable effort.
8. The Council refused the application mainly on the grounds that Mr X said he could walk much further than 80m.
9. Mr X complained and submitted a letter from his consultant. The letter referred to Mr X experiencing balance issues and bone weakness which make mobility difficulty. The letter also said he is at high risk of falls.
10. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said it will assess the application further when it resumes in-person assessments in April.
11. We have no power to award a badge and cannot decide if someone is entitled to a badge. If we find fault in the way a council has assessed an application the most likely outcome is that we would ask the council to reconsider the application. I will not investigate this complaint because the Council has already offered to do a face-to-face assessment and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. This will give the Council the opportunity to observe Mr X’s mobility and to consider the medical evidence from his consultant. If the Council remained of the view that Mr X is not entitled to a badge, then Mr X could make another complaint. But, we are not an appeal body and cannot comment on whether someone is entitled to a badge.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman